This IS NOT your 'pedestrian grade' OIL THREAD!

[Guest ratchethack]

A classic example of a lie being told so many times it becomes a "truth".

. . .

Any way...enough politics...

Not quite, WCB.

 

As I mentioned before, I always find it informative to see these kinds of threads run long enough to flush out the Al Quaeda stooges so ignorant of their environment that they don't have a clue how they're being manipulated as unthinking gullible pawns of propaganda. This level of typical naïveté and depth of ignorance, though increasingly widespread these days, is seldom demonstrated publicly quite so effectively as you've done it here, nor appreciated for its true significance. . .

 

Per my post above, as far off as your numbers are and as poorly researched as they are (see my numbers with full source reference links above)

It gets funnier every time I hear it quoted.

I also find it just as appalling that you evidently take such delight in the ruthless murder of tens of millions of innocent people by typically bloodthirsty Socialist tyrants, per the so often repeated identical tragic pattern of history in literally dozens of Socialist nations of the last century (26 of which were listed previously). Not to mention the fact that you would not only attempt to so carelessly minimize the scale, evidently to the point of actually condoning the world's largest mass murder, torture, imprisonment, and slavery of innocent people in all human history -- but that you're evidently quite comfortable supporting the same "death-style" ideology that STILL perpetrates these murders today on historically the very same model as all those at the very political epicenter of every one of the most barbaric, brutal, repressive, and ruthless tyrannies since the dawn of man.

 

It's clear from your post above that you've also obviously been so propagandized and indoctrinated that whether you're at all conscious of this or not (and I highly suspect the latter), you're taking your marching orders from Osama bin Laden (see link below). Are you aware, WCB, that bin Laden and his network of filthy, murdering 6th-century barbarian thugs are openly committed to murdering YOU and anyone with your Socialist ideology, along with all of your relatives, friends, and countrymen? Oh, they state exactly this publicly, and have done so literally for decades. It'd be one thing if it was just talk -- but have you failed to realize yet, WCB, that they actually DO IT?? What part of the series of global terrorist murders of tens of thousands over the last 50 years do you fail to recognize poses a direct threat to YOU and your hideous ideology, now deep in the "bait" phase of its faithfully and infamously repeated "bait and switch" plan here in this country??

 

In post-Czarist times, Lenin sold the Great Unwashed Proletariat by the millions on, "Bread, Land, and Peace!" as his slogan. By the time it had collapsed under it's own unsupportability, and throughout the aftermath, 100 million (or more, see statistical breakdown in previous post) had been murdered outright or died in the gulags for crimes of being "politically incorrect", untold tens of thouands died of starvation, and at least half that many more survived brutal torture, having finally given up their resistance to the brutality of their own government, and succumbed to repression in the "switch" phase, finally embracing a return to medeival feudalism -- this time under the tyranny of the State, for the great promise of enjoying the "Workers' Paradise" of the Soviet work farms, which were in reality, indistinguishable from prison camps.

 

Now in the Age of iPods and Degenerate Mockery of all Knowledge of History and Wisdom, Hitlery (along with pre-co-sponsor Dubya) sells the Great Unwashed Proletariat on, "Free healthcare for all -- including anyone else on the planet who can get in through open borders, and automatic citizenship for all their spawn!" What d'you imagine the "switch" phase will look like here in this country in terms of government sponsored murders and torture by the time it collapses under its own unsupportability, should you, Blum, and the rest of the Socialist Proletariat stooges here get your way??

 

Being an avowed Socialist as indicated in your post above, WCB, the totalitarian tribal Mullahs and their plane hi-jacking, suicide bombing maniac terror squads have repeatedly laid out the future they have planned for you publicly. They've also already enforced the same kind of horrific repression on YOUR PEOPLE (Socialists) that they have on their own people who refuse to submit to their barbaric and bloody rule, having afterward reduced them to aspirations of being goatherders (at best) living in filthy squalor in some hell-hole wasteland.

 

This would be YOUR ONLY POSSIBLE future, WCB, and that of your family (should you not prefer beheading as your only alternative) and choose life and sworn allegiance to Mohammed under brutally repressive Shariah law (some would say inhuman -- especially for women, who are considered chattel, and who thereby receive forced genital mutilations, forced child marriages, are prohibited an education, and suffer punishments such as being publicly stoned to death, buried alive to their necks, on the basis of a mere accusation of infidelity and the like, all extremely strictly enforced, etc.), over the only alternative they would offer you -- That of course would be the commonly practiced procedure of forcing you to watch as your daughters and wife are gang raped just before your entire family is forced to watch as your head is sawed off with a well-worn beheading blade in the street in front of your home, to shouts of "Allah akbar!" over the sound of your screams gurgling through aortic and carotid arterial blood gushing down your throat and aspirating in and out of your lungs, just before what's left of your family is sold into prostitution and slavery.

 

Here's an interview of your hero and pathetically inconsequential history revisionist William Blum, whom you quoted in your post above, from The Washington Post, that quotes him on the pride he took in the fact that his book made Bin Laden's recommended reading list for you and the rest of us here in the USA:

 

Twenty-four hours after Osama bin Laden told the world that the American people should read the work of a little-known Washington historian, William Blum was still adjusting. Blum, who at 72 is accustomed to laboring in relative left-wing obscurity, checked his emotions and pronounced himself shocked and, well, pleased... "I was not turned off by such an endorsement," he informed a New York radio station... I'm not repulsed, and I'm not going to pretend I am."

SOURCE:

 

The Author Who Got A Big Boost From bin Laden

Historian 'Glad' of Mention As Sales of Book Skyrocket

By David Montgomery

Washington Post Staff Writer

The Washington Post, Saturday, January 21, 2006; Page C01

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6012001971.html

 

Hmmmmmmm. And you're not repulsed by even 20% of the actual historically accurate numbers of brutality, torture and murder resulting from the ideology you and your Pal Bill Blum both support, either, are you, WCB??

 

Have a nice day enjoying Freedom and prosperity, WCB.

[Guest Nogbad]

Leave this thread alone - It's proving my last post entirely wrong and making me happy!

 

Way to go chaps!

[WitchCityBallabio]

Being an avowed Socialist as indicated in your post above, WCB, the totalitarian tribal Mullahs and their plane hi-jacking, suicide bombing maniac terror squads have repeatedly laid out the future they have planned for you publicly. They've also already enforced the same kind of horrific repression on YOUR PEOPLE (Socialists) that they have on their own people who refuse to submit to their barbaric and bloody rule, having afterward reduced them to aspirations of being goatherders (at best) living in filthy squalor in some hell-hole wasteland.

 

Let's be clear here. No where did I say I was a socialist. My tendancies are strictly anarcho-syndicalist. No where have I supported Al-Qaeda or any of their ilk. I find religious extremists of any tendancy repugnant. I put Christian fundamentalists in the same boat as Muslim fundamentalists. With regards to "their plans for horrific repression of socialists" I would imagine Socialists, Marxists and Anarchists in the Middle East would be accustomed to that by now. Not so long ago, when a young upstart named Saddam Hussien was taking power in Iraq (with the support and backing of the U.S) he was given a list of names of Communists in Iraq by the CIA whom he had summarily executed. Anti union, anti left raids, beatings, imprisonments continue today under a new oppressor.

 

I also find it just as appalling that you evidently take such delight in the ruthless murder of tens of millions of innocent people by typically bloodthirsty Socialist tyrants, per the so often repeated identical tragic pattern of history in literally dozens of Socialist nations of the last century (26 of which were listed previously). Not to mention the fact that you would not only attempt to so carelessly minimize the scale, evidently to the point of actually condoning the world's largest mass murder, torture, imprisonment, and slavery of innocent people in all human history -- but that you're evidently quite comfortable supporting the same "death-style" ideology that STILL perpetrates these murders today on historically the very same model as all those at the very political epicenter of every one of the most barbaric, brutal, repressive, and ruthless tyrannies since the dawn of man.

 

You misunderstand me. I don't find the deaths funny, I find your rabid quoting of western capitalist propaganda figures funny. I find the deaths in Russia and the other "Socialist" countries reprehensable. I also find it reprehensable that the leaders in these so-called countries called themselves Socialists or Communists when it was quite obvious (with even a cursory reading of Marx) that they were no kind of Socialist or Communist. I find it disgusting that in places like Spain, the anarchist collectives were destroyed and their leaders killed by "Communists" and that the Fascists were "invited" in to fly in and bomb and march in and kill them all. I find it disgusting that the Paris Commune was allowed to be slaughtered by invading forces invited in by the government. These slaughters all by rabid anti-communsts" like yourself.

 

The U.S. has currently killed 1 million and made 4 million refugees in Iraq. Where's your indignation at that "death style idelogy"?

 

I'm quite done debating this here. I have found over and over again that arguing with diciples of Von Mises is a fruitless endeavor. If you want to test your ideology, you might want to try it over at www.revleft.com. Good Night and Good Luck.

[Guest ratchethack]

Let's be clear here. No where did I say I was a socialist. My tendancies are strictly anarcho-syndicalist.

WCB, it hasn't been at all necessary for you to say you're a Socialist. If it makes you FEEEEL superior to a Socialist, by all means, feel free to think of your "tendancies" [sic] as "strictly" those of a Grand Wizard Anti-Capitalist, Big Honcho Anarchist, Mordecai Malignatus' Great Horned Demon of the Illuminati, Chairman Mao's Heir Apparent, Ernesto "Che" Guevara's pan flute instructor, or Captain of the Branch Davidian bowling team -- I couldn't care less.

 

But by all means, let's clarify a few things. The only outside reference you've brought to this discussion is William Blum , obscure history revisionist and self-importantly proud, self-avowed Socialist, author of several anti-US books on Socialist apologetics. No one but a true Socialist would support the views of this idiot, whose chief agenda, as is the agenda of every Socialist apologist, is always to twist, minimize and distort the true track record of the largest single Socialist experiment in history, that of course being the horrific example of the USSR -- the most profound political disaster in all of human history.

 

You obviously support Blum's views, or you wouldn't have quoted the man in what was apparently some kind of a wildly unspecific and vague, modern classic Socialist revisionist attempt to refute the historic numbers of murdered innocent victims of Socialist tyranny and oppression in the USSR that I'd provided in detailed statistical breakdown, fully backed up with multiple corroborating original sources, including biographies of authors. If you now wish to claim that you don't support Socialist views or Socialist ideology, WCB, perhaps you're able to provide credible "strictly anarcho-syndicalist" sources and backup for your numbers with these, and draw a rational distinction between these sources and the single, "strictly Socialist" source you've actually provided here??

 

Furthermore, you've made it clear that you share the thuddingly absurd view of all Socialists, including Blum, that the explanation for the historic fact that Socialism has failed each and every time it's been foisted on a willing, yet uneducated and illiterate proletariat in all of human history, is that the USA, "The Great Satan", (to use the term of the man who put Blum on the top of your recommended reading list, and with whom you apparently also align your ideology by any "tendancy" [sic] you prefer to identify with), has somehow prevented it from succeeding! This of course, has been the idiotic mantra of every brutal, mass-murdering, psychotic tyrant at the top of the "leadership" of every miserable failure of Socialism of the last 100 years (see list of 26 previously cited). WHO ELSE would you expect them all to blame for their own miserable failures with reams upon reams of elaborate propaganda?!?! Surely they never have, and never will blame their own failures on blind faith in their own miserably unsupportable Socialist dogma that has yet to succeed??!!

 

I'm afraid you've well demonstrated that you're a garden-variety Socialist here, WCB -- whether you're conscious of it or not.

You misunderstand me. I don't find the deaths funny, I find your rabid quoting of western capitalist propaganda figures funny.

Oh I don't believe there's been any misunderstanding on my part whatsoever, WCB. If you want to challenge the "rabid" figures I've fully backed up with the most credible sources extant here, why haven't you brought your own credible sources to refute them? Your position is only as strong as your sources. You've brought only a paragraph written by a washed up, third-rate Socialist history revisionist endorsed by Osama bin Laden -- without any figures at all! Now THAT'S what I call FUNNY!

 

If Blum's paragraph relates in even the most remote, obscure way to "western capitalist propaganda figures" that I've provided -- please do explain.

 

Without credible sources to back them up, WCB, your vague references to the inaccuracy of the numbers I've brought here are meaningless. And while you're at it, what "western capitalist propaganda" exactly are you referring to above? Please do identify this for me and give an example of any inaccurate statements you believe I've made, and by all means I welcome you to challenge the sources I've brought with the best credible backup you're able to provide to refute them.

 

One small caveat: In your posts above, you seem to be very sloppy, and even reckless with your claims, and you appear to ignore sources of statistics that you disagree with, while not providing your own. As has been the experience of at least one other Forum regular, should you provide sources of weak or non-existent credibility here, you may expect me to shred them appropriately with multiple, overwhelmingly superior sources.

The U.S. has currently killed 1 million and made 4 million refugees in Iraq. Where's your indignation at that "death style idelogy"?

OMG, NO! This is embarrassing, and totally unexpected.

 

PLEASE don't tell me you've made the same juvenile mistake (as at least one other here has already done multiple times in previous threads) of confusing murder of innocent civilians with taking lives of enemy combatants conducting acts of war -- a war first declared, and then first fully and egregiously initiated against YOUR NATION and mine via the murder of thousands of innocent civilians -- YOUR countrymen and mine -- under a purely defensive and retaliatory reciprocal declaration of war fully sanctioned by Congress, mutually agreed upon by a coalition of a dozen other Nations allied as one against the terrorism supported by the (then) rogue Iraqi government, in full compliance with procedures of International Law, and even with full approval and authorization since May of '03 by the UN Security Council (a mandate that has been renewed annually ever since) to liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive tyrannical dictatorship that threatened the Western World and the entire planet??!! It would appear that not only is your ignorance of the facts most profound, WCB, but that you neither understand, nor make any distinction between what happened (and is still happening) and an unwarranted, illegal, unilateral and tyrannical murder of civilians! Surely any self-respecting, self-described anarcho-syndicalist "sophisticate" such as yourself is at least capable of mastering this most basic concept?!?!

 

This is very nearly an infantile level, fundamental error that I would expect only of the most illiterate and uneducated Philistine, common as it is. . . Are all anarcho-syndicalists this ignorant? May I most humbly, yet sincerely suggest that if you truly don't make the distinction, WCB, that of course you haven't the slightest comprehension of what you're talking about.

I'm quite done debating this here.

CORRECTION: You're not at all "quite done" debating this here, WCB. You have yet to begin.

 

Having refused to back up your position with anything better than one irrelevant snip from the hapless Blum, and having made the above excruciatingly embarassing mistake, it now appears that you're backing out with no intention of debating anything. If you can't defend your statements, may I suggest don't make them in the first place.

[Greg Field]

Jizzus wept . . .

[grossohc]

Heres me thinking this was a oil thread

[Guest ratchethack]

Jizzus wept . . .

Just my own interpretation of history, Greg, but IMHO He would without much question have indeed wept to behold the most horrific abominations in the history of man sold (in the case of the USSR) under the foul false promise of, "Bread, Land and Peace" under the rank, death-dealing ideology of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, by whose ideology tens of millions of Russian Christians, along with practioners of all faiths, were deemed fools, under the grip of what Marx referred to as "the opiate of the people", and who were later variously tortured, murdered, and enslaved for speaking out against political correctness (much as I'm doing here). . .

 

To borrow from writer and attorney James G. Poulos from his article, Laying On of Hands, Published 5/27/2005, in which Poulos commented on the collectivist basis of Socialism as confused by the pathetically misguided Christian Socialism movement of the 1850's, still very much alive and kicking today:

 

"...the point of [Christ's] instruction to judge not, lest ye be judged, is not for us to collectively excuse each others' sins. I can forgive you for wronging me, and I can repent of my own wrongs; what I can't do is absolve you for wronging yourself..."

 

By far and away the most dangerous and insidious aspect of Socialism today, IMHO, is its power to leverage illiteracy and ignorance in ways never before possible before the advent of "The Information Age" to drag entire civilizations down to ruin -- including all those who rightfully oppose it -- that is, those bright enough to see it exactly for what it is, simply by having an awareness of history and the God-given sense to recognize what's happening under their very noses. . .

 

. . .and so goes the next Nation, dumbed-down just far enough to vote themselves a one-way slide down the Grand Oubliette. . .

[Ryland3210]

Here's some info. on oil additives:

www.lnengineering.com

 

Great Link for Oil info.

 

Shell Rotella 15W40 has the zinc and phosphorous additives to prevent cam and other wear.

 

Also they say 20W50 is good.

 

API SJ rated oils have insufficient Zi and P additives

 

I also have a pdf file on Zinc and Phosphorous contents for numerous oils and additives. I don't know how to post it here, but can send it via email if anyone is interested.

[Skeeve]

Here's some info. on oil additives:

www.lnengineering.com

 

Great Link for Oil info.

 

Shell Rotella 15W40 has the zinc and phosphorous additives to prevent cam and other wear.

 

Also they say 20W50 is good.

 

The only problem w/ 20w50 being that is too thick; from the days of the 1st Ambassador Guzzi's specs have called for a thinner oil than that. Maybe not if you're tooling around the Sudan or Northern Australia, but definitely too heavy for most of us in more moderate climes.

 

I have good experience w/ Rotella or Mobil 1 15w50, so I'll likely stick w/ them...

[Greg Field]

Just my own interpretation of history, Greg, but IMHO He would without much question have indeed wept to behold the most horrific abominations in the history of man sold (in the case of the USSR) under the foul false promise of, "Bread, Land and Peace" under the rank, death-dealing ideology of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, by whose ideology tens of millions of Russian Christians, along with practioners of all faiths, were deemed fools, under the grip of what Marx referred to as "the opiate of the people", and who were later variously tortured, murdered, and enslaved for speaking out against political correctness (much as I'm doing here). . . <_>

 

Loosen up a little, Ratch; the "Jizzus wept" is just non sequitur ad absurdum. It sometimes is effective in snapping folks out of target fixation . . . sometimes.

[Guest ratchethack]

Um, no. No, I don't believe I will loosen up, Greg.

 

D'you figure non sequiturs ad absurdum are effective in snapping folks out of blind ignorance?

 

There's one above on this forum who actually quoted here from the recommended reading list of OBL (see posts and links to original sources above), laughed at the historic statistics of the largest single mass murder by any government on its own citizens in human history, and attempted to revise history by claiming the scale of the actual numbers are exaggerations of propaganda -- obviously without having any clue of what he's talking about, and without providing any sources -- that is, none but one from OBL's recommended reading list!

 

Do you see the suicidal psychosis here?!?! Here we have a man using a quote from the author of a book recommended for him by the head of a terrorist enemy openly sworn to eliminate this man, his family, and his entire Nation, and who has demonstrated his ability to do it by the thousands at a time.

 

This, my friend, is the awesome power of manipulating the naïve, illiterate and ignorant at work in The Dis-Information Age.

 

Oh, I know he's not alone. Take a look around. The woods 'r full of 'em.

 

It's not a matter that I take lightly, despite the incomprehensibly huge numbers of fools who haven't even got a clue that we're either at war or under seige -- both from without and from within, having too long been "loose" enough and careless enough to be content with a pretense of watching the horizon for the approach of the machines of war and seige towers after a declaration of war against us, and after actual acts of war and mass murder of thousands of our own innocent civilians both outside and within our own borders -- while we've STILL got the front gate, back gates, and side gates wide open and unguarded. . .

 

As far as "target fixation" goes, I reckon we're a nation stuffed to the rafters with fools so dumbed-down into blind stupor and pious self righteousness by the propaganda of a nearly wholly captive media that they won't have a clue that there's a target they SHOULD HAVE fixed on until they actually feel the knives of the enemy in their throats -- or they make a choice to jump to their deaths from a burning building rather than roast alive, the way so many of their fellow countrymen did six years ago last month.

 

When (not if) the Chamberlain/Churchill scenario repeats itself, d'you imagine it'll take you by surprise, and d'you figure it'll be too late by then, d'you reckon that there'll always be plenty of time to "loosen up", or d'you reckon such a comparison today is nothing but paranoia and empty BS? D'you reckon Churchill was a paranoiac??

 

Enquiring minds (well, you know. . .)

 

Of course, Curchill was "completely out of touch with mainstream politics", and a target of unrelenting attack in the mainstream media of his day. D'you reckon Churchill would've been laughed at and mocked here today? I reckon we'll never know. We have no one here today even qualified to shine Churchill's shoes. . .

 

See Library of Congress' historic reminder of repeating parallels of history here:

 

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/wc-hour.html

[Greg Field]

I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt, in that I do believe there's a war going on between ideologies, those of the liberal west and of fundamentalist mooselumbism. I hope you will also recognize that there is more than one way in which a war can be fought. That said, I believe the way we are currently fighting it plays into the hand of the enemy and ensures his ultimate victory. I would choose to fight, but in a way I think makes victory possible. That requires a change of course. Some would say that makes me non-patriotic, blah, blah, blah. It isn't true. Staying a losing course is unpatriotic, in my opinion.

[Ryland3210]

The only problem w/ 20w50 being that is too thick; from the days of the 1st Ambassador Guzzi's specs have called for a thinner oil than that. Maybe not if you're tooling around the Sudan or Northern Australia, but definitely too heavy for most of us in more moderate climes.

 

I have good experience w/ Rotella or Mobil 1 15w50, so I'll likely stick w/ them...

 

I need clarification. If 20W50 is too thick, why is 15W50 OK? Are you saying that on a cold start, the 20 is sufficiently thicker than the 15 to cause lubrication problems?

 

 

I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt, in that I do believe there's a war going on between ideologies, those of the liberal west and of fundamentalist mooselumbism. I hope you will also recognize that there is more than one way in which a war can be fought. That said, I believe the way we are currently fighting it plays into the hand of the enemy and ensures his ultimate victory. I would choose to fight, but in a way I think makes victory possible. That requires a change of course. Some would say that makes me non-patriotic, blah, blah, blah. It isn't true. Staying a losing course is unpatriotic, in my opinion.

 

I would like to hear what your concept of the other ways to win are. Clandestine methods, such as covert assassination, which some believe are practiced by Putin, and which are obviously practiced by other regimes, are not politically acceptable anymore in the U.S. For example, the former CIA director during the Clinton administration, after 9/11, said that there were three separate times when they called the Whitehouse with Osama bin Laden in their gunsites for permission to fire. We were not at war at the time. Clinton declined all three times, citing concern about collateral damage.

[Guest ratchethack]

I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt, in that I do believe there's a war going on between ideologies, those of the liberal west and of fundamentalist mooselumbism.

I'd made no assumptions about your beliefs in this regard of any kind (doubts or otherwise), but thanks for the clarification.

I hope you will also recognize that there is more than one way in which a war can be fought. That said, I believe the way we are currently fighting it plays into the hand of the enemy and ensures his ultimate victory. I would choose to fight, but in a way I think makes victory possible. That requires a change of course.

Hm. A change of course representing a very significant departure from four years of lack of sustained success has been well underway since the beginning of this year, and results indicating a dramatic improvement on the ground are already in.

 

I'm no military historian or battlefield strategist, but I've read enough and studied enough of those who are (see article below -- please check the biography of the author, also provided. His books WILL NOT be found on OBL's recommended reading list) to know that one of the principal assumptions made by any commander of war is that no war strategy ever survives engagement with the enemy.

 

Look, I'm as guilty as the next one in line as far as the purely human tendency for anyone and everyone to armchair quarterback each and every stage of each and every war effort in history with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight (and of course without the perspective and intelligence available to only ONE MAN -- the CIC).

 

In fact, I've been probably the most relentless critic of GWB's prosecution (or non-prosecution, depending on phase) of the war in Iraq that I know. This doesn't make anyone's idea of "the right way to do it" (including mine) any better than what's actually been done.

 

If anyone still believes that victory is NOT POSSIBLE in light of Gen. Petraeus' Congressional testimony a few weeks back, I'd offer the reasonable suggestion that along with vast segments of non-thinking Sheeple, they've either not been paying attention lately, or they've been so dumbed-down, so indoctrinated, and so brainwashed by MoveOn.org and the abundant blatant enemy designer propaganda sources of similar stripe that pour out continuously from the nearly wholly captive mainstream media that they'll never get it.

 

Why We're Winning Now in Iraq

By FREDERICK W. KAGAN

The Wall Street Journal , September 28, 2007; Page A15

 

Many politicians and pundits in Washington have ignored perhaps the most important point made by Gen. David Petraeus in his recent congressional testimony: The defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq requires a combination of conventional forces, special forces and local forces. This realization has profound implications not only for American strategy in Iraq, but also for the future of the war on terror.

 

As Gen. Petraeus made clear, the adoption of a true counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq in January 2007 has led to unprecedented progress in the struggle against al Qaeda in Iraq, by protecting Sunni Arabs who reject the terrorists among them from the vicious retribution of those terrorists. In his address to the United Nations General Assembly Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also touted the effectiveness of this strategy while at the same time warning of al Qaeda in Iraq's continued threat to his government and indeed the entire region.

 

Yet despite the undeniable successes the new strategy has achieved against al Qaeda in Iraq, many in Congress are still pushing to change the mission of U.S. forces back to a counterterrorism role relying on special forces and precision munitions to conduct targeted attacks on terrorist leaders. This change would bring us back to the traditional, consensus strategy for dealing with cellular terrorist groups like al Qaeda -- a strategy that has consistently failed in Iraq.

 

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the consensus of American strategists has been that the best way to fight a cellular terrorist organization like al Qaeda is through a combination of targeted strikes against key leaders and efforts to discredit al Qaeda's takfiri ideology in the Muslim community. Precision-guided munitions and special forces have been touted as the ideal weapons against this sort of group, because they require a minimal presence on the ground and therefore do not create the image of American invasion or occupation of a Muslim country.

 

A correlative assumption has often been that the visible presence of Western troops in Muslim lands creates more terrorists than it eliminates. The American attack on the Taliban in 2001 is often held up now -- as it was at the time -- as an exemplar of the right way to do things in this war: Small numbers of special forces worked with indigenous Afghan resistance fighters to defeat the Taliban and drive out al Qaeda without the infusion of large numbers of American ground forces. For many, Afghanistan is the virtuous war (contrasting with Iraq) not only because it was fought against the group that planned the 9/11 attacks, but also because it was fought in accord with accepted theories of fighting cellular terrorist organizations.

 

This strategy failed in Iraq for four years -- skilled U.S. special-forces teams killed a succession of al Qaeda in Iraq leaders, but the organization was able to replace them faster than we could kill them. A counterterrorism strategy that did not secure the population from terrorist attacks led to consistent increases in terrorist violence and exposed Sunni leaders disenchanted with the terrorists to brutal death whenever they tried to resist. It emerged that "winning the hearts and minds" of the local population is not enough when the terrorists are able to torture and kill anyone who tries to stand up against them.

 

Despite an extremely aggressive counterterrorism campaign, by the end of 2006, al Qaeda in Iraq had heavily fortified strongholds equipped with media centers, torture chambers, weapons depots and training areas throughout Anbar province; in Baghdad; in Baqubah and other parts of Diyala province; in Arab Jabour and other villages south of Baghdad; and in various parts of Salah-ad-Din province north of the capital. Al Qaeda in Iraq was blending with the Sunni Arab insurgency in a relationship of mutual support. It was able to conduct scores of devastating, spectacular attacks against Shiite and other targets. Killing al Qaeda leaders in targeted raids had failed utterly either to prevent al Qaeda in Iraq from establishing safe havens throughout Iraq or to control the terrorist violence.

 

The Sunni Arabs in Iraq lost their enthusiasm for al Qaeda very quickly after their initial embrace of the movement. By 2005, currents of resistance had begun to flow in Anbar, expanding in 2006. Al Qaeda responded to this rising resistance with unspeakable brutality -- beheading young children, executing Sunni leaders and preventing their bodies from being buried within the time required by Muslim law, torturing resisters by gouging out their eyes, electrocuting them, crushing their heads in vices, and so on. This brutality naturally inflamed the desire to resist in the Sunni Arab community -- but actual resistance in 2006 remained fitful and ineffective. There was no power in Anbar or anywhere that could protect the resisters against al Qaeda retribution, and so al Qaeda continued to maintain its position by force among a population that had initially welcomed it willingly.

 

The proof? In all of 2006, there were only 1,000 volunteers to join the Iraqi Security Forces in Anbar, despite rising resentment against al Qaeda. Voluntarism was kept down by al Qaeda attacks against ISF recruiting stations and targeted attacks on the families of volunteers. Although tribal leaders had begun to turn against the terrorists, American forces remained under siege in the provincial capital of Ramadi -- they ultimately had to level all of the buildings around their headquarters to secure it from constant attack. An initial clearing operation conducted by Col. Sean MacFarland established forward positions in Ramadi with tremendous difficulty and at great cost, but the city was not cleared; attacks on American forces remained extremely high; and the terrorist safe-havens in the province were largely intact.

 

This year has been a different story in Anbar, and elsewhere in Iraq. The influx of American forces in support of a counterinsurgency strategy -- more than 4,000 went into Anbar -- allowed U.S. commanders to take hold of the local resentment against al Qaeda by promising to protect those who resisted the terrorists. When American forces entered al Qaeda strongholds like Arab Jabour, the first question the locals asked is: Are you going to stay this time? They wanted to know if the U.S. would commit to protecting them against al Qaeda retribution. U.S. soldiers have done so, in Anbar, Baghdad, Baqubah, Arab Jabour and elsewhere. They have established joint security stations with Iraqi soldiers and police throughout urban areas and in villages. They have worked with former insurgents and local people to form "concerned citizens" groups to protect their own neighborhoods. Their presence among the people has generated confidence that al Qaeda will be defeated, resulting in increased information about the movements of al Qaeda operatives and local support for capturing or killing them.

 

The result was a dramatic turnabout in Anbar itself -- in contrast to the 1,000 recruits of last year, there have already been more than 12,000 this year. Insurgent groups like the 1920s Revolution Brigades that had been fighting alongside al Qaeda in 2006 have fractured, with many coming over to fight with the coalition against the terrorists -- more than 30,000 Iraq-wide, by some estimates. The tribal movement in Anbar both solidified and spread -- there are now counter-al Qaeda movements throughout Central Iraq, including Diyala, Baghdad, Salah-ad-Din, Babil and Ninewah. Only recently an "awakening council" was formed in Mosul, Ninewah's capital, modeled on the Anbar pattern.

 

A targeted raid killed Abu Musaab al Zarqawi, founder of al Qaeda in Iraq, near Baqubah in June 2006. After that raid, al Qaeda's grip on Baqubah and throughout Diyala only grew stronger. But skillful clearing operations conducted by American forces, augmented by the surge, have driven al Qaeda out of Baqubah almost entirely. The "Baqubah Guardians" now protect that provincial capital against al Qaeda fighters who previously used it as a major base of operations. The old strategy of targeted raids failed in Diyala, as in Anbar and elsewhere throughout Iraq. The new strategy of protecting the population, in combination with targeted raids, has succeeded so well that al Qaeda in Iraq now holds no major urban sanctuary.

 

This turnabout coincided with an increase in American forces in Iraq and a change in their mission to securing the population. Not only were more American troops moving about the country, but they were much more visible as they established positions spread out among urban populations. According to all the principles of the consensus counterterrorism strategy, the effect of this surge should have been to generate more terrorists and more terrorism. Instead, it enabled the Iraqi people to throw off the terrorists whose ideas they had already rejected, confident that they would be protected from horrible reprisals. It proved that, at least in this case, conventional forces in significant numbers conducting a traditional counterinsurgency mission were absolutely essential to defeating this cellular terrorist group.

 

What lessons does this example hold for future fights in the War on Terror? First, defeating al Qaeda in Iraq requires continuing an effective counterinsurgency strategy that involves American conventional forces helping Iraqi Security Forces to protect the population in conjunction with targeted strikes. Reverting to a strategy relying only on targeted raids will allow al Qaeda to re-establish itself in Iraq and begin once again to gain strength. In the longer term, we must fundamentally re-evaluate the consensus strategy for fighting the war on terror. Success against al Qaeda in Iraq obviously does not show that the solution to problems in Waziristan, Baluchistan or elsewhere lies in an American-led invasion. Each situation is unique, each al-Qaeda franchise is unique, and responses must be tailored appropriately.

 

But one thing is clear from the Iraqi experience. It is not enough to persuade a Muslim population to reject al Qaeda's ideology and practice. Someone must also be willing and able to protect that population against the terrorists they had been harboring, something that special forces and long-range missiles alone can't do.

 

Author Bio:

 

FREDERICK W. KAGAN - A military historian who has taught at West Point, American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Frederick Kagan specializes in defense issues and the American military. In particular he studies defense transformation, the defense budget, and defense strategy and warfare. He has also written about Russian and European military history.

 

Professional Experience

 

-Associate professor of military history, 2001-2005; assistant professor of military history, 1995-2001; United States Military Academy (West Point)

 

Education

 

B.A., Soviet and East European studies; Ph.D., Russian and Soviet military history, Yale University

 

 

Articles and Short Publications

 

Why We're Winning Now in Iraq

 

Men at Work, Children at Play

 

What We've Accomplished

 

 

Books

 

Finding the Target

 

The End of the Old Order

 

No Middle Way: The Challenge of Exit Strategies from Iraq

 

 

Events

 

"No Middle Way": Two Reports on Iraq

 

Assessing the Surge in Iraq

 

Can We Afford the Military We Need?

 

 

Speaking Engagements

 

Iraq: Is the Escalation Working?

[dlaing]

(under the "I'm OK, you're OK, yes, your Healthcare Insurance will pay" plan)

A self-help book seems like a good example of how to avoid Insurance claims.

Do you prefer the more expensive Freudian couch side analysis insurance claims?